I think the difference is that Saddam might be willing actually to use his nuclear weapons, whereas the United States never would.
You are joking, right? My apologies if this is a rather good whoosh, but I can think of two holes in this argument.
Having said that, let me also add my support for Bryans arguments on this - I feel a lot more comfortable about the US having WMD’s than I do about Iraq developing them.
Yeah, but we’re gettin’ there! 
Coming from a country (UK) which has nuclear weapons but is - hopefully - unlikely to use them, I share the same misgivings about less “stable” or democratic countries having access to them.
However no one state has yet been officially appointed “ruler of the world” by national consensus, so I can’t help feeling inward revulsion at any state being denied sovereignty over itself by another. Sure - if both those states belong to an uber-body with “rules” - such as the UN, then it’s fine for other members to enforce them by whatever agreed measures that uberbody has.
In a GD thread on a convention on children (?) that the US hasn’t signed up to, several posters made the valid point that the US does not like things that could interfere with its sovereignty over itself or its own domestic laws/policy.
Shouldn’t the same leeway be afforded to other countries?
Until God comes down and personally hands out WMD-production-licenses to certain countries, I think all have equal rights to produce them. Morally, WMDs are totally repugnant. The whole concept of such a thing is an act again God, against love, reason and humanity.
But when we start “allowing” some nations to have certain weapons/defenses and not other, it become somewhat quis custodet*.
A better way of saying it is “The United States has a government with internal controls that would prevent needless use of nuclear weapons, while Iraq does not.”
Most of the criticisms of the US regarding this situation seem to fall victim to the “all is equal” fallacy… that one can compare two situations that appear similar on the surface, while ignoring all the factors that make the two situations wildly different.
Nor does Pakistan, but I don’t see any threats towards that country.
Sure. As long as those countries aren’t slapped with surrender conditions (that they agreed to).
It’s like criminal justice. People are left alone (ideally) until they do something wrong. Then they have to prove themselves trustworthy again.
So… what has Iraq done to prove themselves trustworthy? Aside from avoid attention in the media, that is. “Hey, Saddam, you’ve got the whole world on your ass… well, just lie low for a while, and they’ll forget everything, and then you can do whatever you want again!”
BTW, I realise that my previous post possibly falls under this umbrella!
Go back to the second part of my post, where I point out the fallacy of assuming two situations to be equal.
Then you can get back to me.
Ha.
What a great simulpost.
So, to sum up:
“When does Bush get to disobey the UN and attack Iraq for disobeying the UN?”
From the fark.com message boards
Gary wrote:
Do they start with “H” and “N”? (Yes, I was using irony as a rhetorical device.)
I’d like to add that Article 25, paragraph 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads:
It was written shortly after the Kennedy assassination, when it occured to someone that had Kennedy survived his head wound in a vegetative state, some mechanism to calmly replace him should be in place. It can also be applied if the President has gone visibly nuts, as would be susected if GWB suddenly said “Let’s nuke Sweden!” The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would smile and nod while hastily assembling the cabinet and bringing in the Vice President. They are legally entitled to take this course of action. In fact, if they suspect the President of mental illness, they have the duty to invoke Article 25.
Now, if Saddam went nuts: (A) who would know? and (B) anyone who tried to stop him would be shot. And when the first nuke lands on Tel Aviv (and the Israeli response nukes land on Baghdad, Damascus, Tripoli, Cairo and Teheran) I’m sure there will be mass anti-U.S. demonstrations demanding to know “Why, oh, why didn’t you stop Iraq when you had the chance! This is all YOUR fault!”
It wasn’t invoked when Reagan was clearly becoming incompetent.
Gee, you didn’t notice that big ol’ spot on the map named INDIA?
Pakistan built nukes because India already had them, and if any nation is going to be the first, second and third target of Pakistani nuclear forces, it can only be India, their historical enemies. The U.S. doesn’t really have to spend a lot of time worrying about Pakistan because India will gladly pulverize them if Pakistan gets overly aggresive.
A nuclear Iraq, on the other hand, will be in a position to threaten its oil-supplying neighbors and oil remains a critical resource. The only nation in the area that could pulverize them would be Israel, and that will only make the situation massively worse.
A nuclear North Korea would be in a position to clobber Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore; all of them major industrial centers. The loss or destabilization of any of them could send the world economy into a huge tailspin. And, ironically, North Korea doesn’t conduct international trade so it would barely be affected at all.
So, do you want to stop them now or leave one hell of a mess for your children?
He was just sleepy.
Even at his worst, Reagan wasn’t violently crazy. The attack on Libya may have been ill-advised (though if they’d got Ghadafi, we might be looking at it differently) but if he had called for nuclear deployment for no apparant reason, he would have been tucked away in a closet somewhere and George Bush would have stepped up.
Saddam, however, says “have that man shot!” and the only question is “rifle or pistol?”
Hysterical rhetoric aside, the problem (for many non-US countries) seems to be the perceived hypocrisy. If we’re not to compare the Iraq situation with any other situation, then Bush needs to stand up and tell it like it is, rather than making the US’s actions appear to be a moral crusade. IMO it is the invoking of morality that makes people apply SPOOFE’s “fallacy of assuming two situations to be equal”.
Also remember that if Kennedy hadn’t stood against the hawks, and had invaded Cuba, the result would have been Soviet tactical strikes.
And who would be the first country that is called upon for aid when someone gets shit deep in trouble? Duh, wait, let me think, this is a hard one, it’s taking a while. Why…ding ding ding…that would be AMERICA.
My apologies - I thought as such, but had to check.
Even if that were true, does this “fact” give the US an excuse to act with unilateral impunity?
I don’t think so.